Free Will - Yes/No?

[LadyForCamus]

Wait I don't get it. How come not freely? I admit I know next to nothing scientifically or philosophically about the free will argument.

[Excited Penguin]

Do we have free will, or do we live in a deterministic universe?

I take it you asked that for simplicity.

I believe we live in a deterministic universe, and I don't believe in free will either... but even if we did live in an indeterministic universe the concept of contra-causal free will would still be incoherent, I'm sure you agree.

-Hammy

There's no way I can justify that phrasing of mine without also defending the concept of free will, so I can't. But I will say this, I specifically put it like that because I don't believe in free will, and I also believe it's one or the other, and since it can't be the one, it's necessarily the other.

In my mind indeterminism is just as incoherent of an idea as free will is, but feel free to try and disabuse me of that notion.

[Excited Penguin]

Understanding FW in the legal sense, sure I think I often have it.  Very rarely am I coerced to do what I'd rather not.  When it comes to being who I am but had no say in, I am a willing participant.  So there is no coercion there.  Put me down for FW yes with just enough determinism to make the world a little predictable and you'll have a deal.

I can't really make sense of FW in the OMG-we're-all-robots sense.  So none of that for me, thanks.

When it comes to being who you are, you're neither willing or unwilling, you just are. Your first two sentences I couldn't make any sense of, so please elaborate.

It does sound to me like you don't really care about the truth in this case, just about your preconceived notions and preferences. So, yeah, you're welcome.

Wait I don't get it.  How come not freely?  I admit I know next to nothing scientifically or philosophically about the free will argument.

You didn't control what made you want to withhold peeing.

[Edwardo Piet]

I just mean our actions are either part of the causal chain in the universe and hence we don't cause them, or they're indeterministic and hence we don't cause them, or they're a combination of determinstic and indeterministic, and hence we don't cause them (because if neither doesn't how can both together?). That's all I mean

-Hammy

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

*What happens in the next second is dependent on what has happened in the previous second.
* I.e, the future is dependent on everything that has happened in the past.
*The future is dependent on the past that we were not a part of, I.e, before we were born.
*I.e, we have no control over the future.
*The future is set.

What do you think of my argument?
I'd appreciate if Evie could also give his opinion.

[Excited Penguin]

I just mean our actions are either part of the causal chain in the universe and hence we don't cause them, or they're indeterministic and hence we don't cause them, or they're a combination of determinstic and indeterministic, and hence we don't cause them (because if neither doesn't how can both together?). That's all I mean

-Hammy

Yet I just said I can't make any sense of indeterminism.

[Excited Penguin]

*What happens in the next second is dependent on what has happened in the previous second.
* I.e, the future is dependent on everything that has happened in the past.
*The future is dependent on the past that we were not a part of, I.e, before we were born.
*I.e, we have no control over the future.

What do you think of my argument?
I'd appreciate if Evie could also give him opinion.

It's sound and it happens to be correct.

[Edwardo Piet]

In my mind indeterminism is just as incoherent of an idea as free will is, but feel free to try and disabuse me of that notion.

I obviously believe in causality and believe that the sun comes up because it is caused to come up, but David Hume demonstrated causality has no absolute proof.

I believe in causality 100% and it is the basis of science, it's just not absolute like mathematics.

It's just the case that it's possible that causality doesn't exist, and yet free will would still be incoherent even if that were the case.

-Hammy

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

*What happens in the next second is dependent on what has happened in the previous second.
* I.e, the future is dependent on everything that has happened in the past.
*The future is dependent on the past that we were not a part of, I.e, before we were born.
*I.e, we have no control over the future.

What do you think of my argument?
I'd appreciate if Evie could also give him opinion.

It's sound and it happens to be correct.

Thank you,I'd also like an opinion from Evie.

[Edwardo Piet]

*What happens in the next second is dependent on what has happened in the previous second.
[...]
* I.e, the future is dependent on everything that has happened in the past.
[...]
*The future is dependent on the past that we were not a part of, I.e, before we were born.

I'd describe this all as different examples of premise 1:

P1. Causality implies by definition that past actions follow the future.

I'd say that's indeed true by definition, a tautologically 100% sound premise, true by definition.

*I.e, we have no control over the future.

I.e., premise 2:

P2. Causality exists.

I agree with the premise that causality exists, and whilst not tautological/true by definition, it is very sound and reasonable. I think we can all agree that not believing in cause and effect is rather silly.

What do you think of my argument?
I'd appreciate if Hammy could also give him opinion.

I'd say it's less of a valid argument and more like two sound premises, my question is, what is your conclusion? Do you conclude from these premises that free will doesn't exist? I make that conclusion.

I'd make the conclusion:

C. Therefore free will doesn't exist

If that is your conclusion I'd say it's a valid argument, as well as having sound premises, and therefore fully sound. It lacks validity without a conclusion, just as it would lack soundness without sound premises, but to be a fully sound sound argument would require both sound premises and a valid conclusion from those sound premises ("soundness" means both "the combination of sound premises and a valid argument" and also just the sound premises themselves, it has two meanings, which can be confusing, I know, lol).

-Hammy

ETA: There is another implict premise omitted too for me to complete the argument:

If causality exists free will cannot exist

So I'd make the full argument:

P1. Causality implies by definition that past actions follow the future.
P2. If causality exists free will cannot exist.
P3. Causality exists.
C. Therefore free will does not exist.

-Hammy